Any pro-NEMs legislation must find a place on the spectrum of commitment. At one end of the spectrum, legislation could create an unassailable system with monopolistic powers, able to misuse data about its users, cherry-pick only the most attractive market sectors then skew those sectors for operators’ own political or commercial ends. That would be a highly prized commercial opportunity for operators. At the other end is a danger of shaping a system so loaded with obligations, but so timorous in the unique benefits awarded, that no firms will take on the risks of launching the facility.
Any government initiating a system of e-markets as a public utility has to decide where it stands on this spectrum. Some will favour a valuable package of benefits that should ensure deep commitment from technology companies who can then be induced to comply with extensive obligations.
More protectionist politicians may construct only a limited range of benefits to be made available to a winning consortium, limiting the investment likely to be forthcoming from that consortium. This would avoid exposing existing business channels to too well resourced a competitor. We advocate a confident approach: valuable concessions matched by exacting obligations to ensure maximum opportunity for users.
Much of the interests of government, users and operators are aligned. All want the putative system to grow smoothly and encompass the biggest number of users. This legislation needs to clarify points where interests might diverge, particularly if NEMs achieves deep penetration. Policymakers need to create a bedrock of shared, realistic, expectations for an exciting new public utility.